No, ERA would not hurt women

Let's start by actually looking at the proposed Equal Rights Amendment. Section 1 says "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."

The Constitution involves the relationship between the government and the people. It does not affect relationships between citizens. It would not mean the end of alimony or child support, because those involve a contract between people. Similarly, because an insurance company is not a government entity, passage would not have an impact on insurance rates, on the disparity between what dry cleaners charge for women's vs men's clothing or on employers paying women less than men.

The impact of the ERA to public aid programs would be to open them up to men, too. I don't know if in practice men are denied WIC benefits based on their gender, but if they are, passage of the ERA would allow a poor father to get benefits the same as a poor mother would.

Now, all this being said, I'm not entirely certain an ERA is even needed. The Constitution mentions "people", "persons," "citizens." It is not gender specific. Look at the 14th Amendment: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The 5th Amendment ascribes these duties to the federal government. This applies equally to women since we are, indeed, citizens.

Mary Hunter

Carpentersville